John Bowlby's Evolutionary Theory Of Attachment

The impacts of infants attachment in their early stages can never be overlooked. It forms the basis of their development and interaction with others especially caregivers. John Bowlby defined attachment as a “lasting psychological connectedness between human beings” (1969, p.194). Nativist sees the connectedness as a biological process; empiricist, however, perceives connectedness as a learning curve through interaction with the environment. This essay will look at Bowlby’s evolutionary theory and the learning theory to exemplify the nature vs. nurture viewpoints of attachment while providing contrasting views using Lorenz and Harlow studies as evidence to support the theories. Finally, the essay will use various studies that refute both claims.

According to the nativist, it’s rather individual’s innate biological nature that shapes his or her attachment with a caregiver. This viewpoint emanated from John Bowlby evolutionary theory of attachment. Bowlby (1969) conceptualised that evolution has contributed to humans behaviour that has become imperative to their survival and to ensure the passage of genes to another generation. Bowlby pointed out that, infants are already born with innate to form attachments with others that help to increase their chances of survival. Infants elicit innate behaviours, for example, crying and smiling that trigger instant attentions from the caregiver. Usually, when parents hear babies cry
Dollard and Miller (1950) observed that attachment is a behaviour that is acquired through classical and operant conditioning. Through classical conditioning, infants learn to form an attachment with their caregiver with food. The caregiver, usually the mother becomes someone the baby feel protected when she is around due to their affinity with